Quantcast
Opinion

Scottish bill casts doubt on role of family as fundamental to society

Comments

Return To Article
  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    June 20, 2014 6:25 a.m.

    Abrogation of parental rights is happening in the United States, at least in Massachusetts, where the state denied Justina Pelletier's family from removing her from state custody - when the state was not providing any medical assistance. It turns out several other Massachusetts families were similarly denied parental rights.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    June 20, 2014 6:30 a.m.

    I don't know anything about this Scottish bill, but I am betting that this editorial is an overreaction.

  • Casey See FLOWER MOUND, TX
    June 20, 2014 7:29 a.m.

    It is seemingly well intention laws that are so broad and over arching that can be easily manipulated by different groups to advance their perceived set of values. yes both sides of the spectrum can hijack such laws.

  • Star Bright Salt Lake City, Ut
    June 20, 2014 8:03 a.m.

    Maybe, Esquire, you might read he bill before you condemn the editorial.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 20, 2014 8:06 a.m.

    This editorial misinforms the reader by taking the Scottish bill out of context and imagining horrible consequences -- obviously as an endeavor to ring alarm bells over other issues where the traditional family is "under attack".

    All what is happening in Scotland is that The National Guidance for Child Protection, published in 2010, was updated in relation to issues such as Child Sexual Exploitation and Internet Safety. Additional notes aim "to raise practitioner awareness of the increased vulnerability of disabled children." The U.S., and Utah in particular, could take a lot of inspiration from other advanced countries who spend much more on education and health care for their children.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 20, 2014 8:31 a.m.

    The highly touted 'traditional' family appears to be a disfunctional system that often fails, and more and more is a terrible place to grow up in. Instead of virtually guaranteeing every person the right to reproduce, we'd be better off if kids were very difficult to have. I'm not surprised government has to step in; someone has to do it.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 20, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    Update of my previous comment. More information shows that the Scottish bill contains many excellent provisions such as more free Early Learning for 3 and 4 year olds; protection for the most vulnerable small children; Free School Lunches to all children in primary 1–3; better permanence planning for looked after children by giving all 16 year olds in care the right to stay in care until the age of 21; support the parenting role of kinship carers; provide a single point of contact for every child at risk, etc.

    The "opposition" seems to comes from extreme Christian right-wing groups who cry foul for anything that they imagine threatens their fundamentalist view on education. It's a shame that this DN editorial does not give an honest view on the whole situation. And, again, Utah could learn a lot from Scotland here.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    June 20, 2014 9:31 a.m.

    @ Star Bright, I said I don't know anything about the bill. And I stand by my comment, that this editorial is an overreaction. I'll rely on the good efforts of Wilf55, who seems to be providing more objectivity and bona fide information than this hand-wringing editorial.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    June 20, 2014 9:53 a.m.

    This editorial is downright deceptive in misrepresenting the "Children and Young People (Scotland)Act".

    The Act is "to make provision about the rights of children and young people; to make provision about investigations by the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland; to make provision for and about the provision of services and support for or in relation to children and young people; to make provision for an adoption register; to make provision about children’s hearings, detention in secure accommodation and consultation on certain proposals in relation to schools; and for connected purposes."

    There is nothing nefarious about this bill, and it does NOT cast any doubts on the role of the family (nor the "traditional family").

    The Bill is an update designed to "make provision" for meeting the requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (commonly abbreviated as the CRC, CROC, or UNCRC).

    Anyone who sees the deplorable conditions in which over 90% of children in the world are living, supports these principles.

    This editorial is either clueless or fanatic, or both.

  • WhatMe? Salt Lake City, UT
    June 20, 2014 9:58 a.m.

    @Wilf 55 and @Esquire, I just did a search on this bill and found that it is not just the extreme right-wing Christian groups that are concerned. While I myself don't agree with government having as big a role as Wilf 55 thinks is proper, according to what I read, there are many who liked all the provisions listed by Wilf 55, but are concerned about the "named guardian" for each and every child in Scotland who would have access to any and all police and health records of the family of each child and be able to intervene if they deemed it appropriate.

    Now if you could guarantee that the "named guardian" agreed with you on your parenting skills and philosophy maybe you would welcome the "free" advice. But what if the named guardian for your child had differing opinions about the correct way to raise your child and reported you each time they saw something they were concerned with, would you still see it as a blessing? What if that guardian felt that right-wing Christian values were the best and reported you for being too permissive, would you still agree that the state knows best?

  • Samuel B Martineau Bountiful, UT
    June 20, 2014 10:48 a.m.

    @Wilf55

    I am noting that you have sidestepped the issue of the named guardian. The editorial already said that there were laudable parts of the bill, which is all you have pointed out. But the concern is specifically about a person outside of the family being named a guardian for children when there is no proof that parents have done anything wrong. Is the editorial incorrect that this is the case?

  • Tornado Mama Dallas, TX
    June 20, 2014 10:51 a.m.

    Parental rights are under attack. Legislation similar to that in Scotland is being proposed in US Congress right now-- United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

    The CRPD would force the federal government to ensure that all decisions for children with disabilities are made in the best interests of the child. Basically, the CRPD will allow courts to treat all parents of children with disabilities as though they were abusive parents. Social workers will have the final say in decisions that should reside with parents.

    But this isn't the only attack on parental rights. Here are just three examples:

    David Parker, a father to a kindergartener in Massachusetts, was arrested in 2005 even after peacefully, patiently working with the school system to try to opt-out of the homosexual curricula taught to his son.

    Justina Pettelier (16) and Sammy Nikolayev (5 months) were taken into Child Services when their loving parents sought a second medical opinion.

    This legislation and current attacks on parental rights in America should be a warning sign to all who value the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. That's why I support the Parental Rights Amendment.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 20, 2014 11:01 a.m.

    #1. I find it amazing that Esquire's comment (that he knows nothing about the bill but he's sure the editorial is an over-reaction) having more than twice as many "likes" than any other comment... is just amazing.

    Guess it just shows there are a lot of ditto-heads out there who find it easier to just click "like" than to actually formulate a thoughtful comment of their own.

    It's amazing when a comment that you don't know anything... gets so many likes.

    ==============

    I agree that the "War on the Family" is just like the rest of the wars out there... the war on women, war on immigrants, war on whatever group you can think of (to make them upset and get their vote)... is pretty much an over-reaction to get printed, or to start contention, and get people riled up.

    Back in my day the highly hyped attack-on-family was the "test-tube-baby". Everybody said it would make fathers irrelevant... but it hasn't.

    Same with this... it probably won't change or threaten anything.

    We already have States that over-step their bounds. Out of words. To be continued...

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 20, 2014 11:08 a.m.

    ... Continued...

    Remember the parents in Utah convicted of kidnapping... for taking their son out of the State when the State was going to take their son from them, and force him to have Chemo he didn't actually need (because the parents had disobeyed a doctor's order)?

    Remember the treatment of the children of FLDS families in Texas... all because of a prank phone call from a lady in Denver pretending she was an abused child?

    The case of the family in Boston is also very compelling (Google it and read about it if you're not up on it).

    The point is... The State can over-step (and the often does).... but it doesn't kill the family, and the family isn't under attack. They are just well-meaning people, doing what they think is best. People with a little government power often run amock, but it's not a war on anybody.

    The main thing to take from this is... no matter what they do... the family is still the fundamental unit of society.

    That hasn't changed. Not even with all these abuses. And it won't change. If we individually don't let it.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 20, 2014 11:18 a.m.

    I agree that legislation can have downsides if ill implemented or misused by some. That can be the case when the government expands its authority. But the basic idea of a "national guardian" in Scotland (wrong word, gives Big Brother impression) is clearly to avoid or reduce the many tragedies that can touch children: 50% of parents divorce, with all the drama for kinds, and often each parent trying to win the child for him/herself; there is physical and sexual abuse (most frequent within families and insiders); there is hidden poverty and children may go hungry or not get proper schooling, and so on. For a child to know there is a specific person to turn to in confidence is an unmistakable advantage.

    If all parents would behave well, be responsible, and have sufficient means, there would be no need for a "guardian angel" (better word).

    So this DN editorial should not immediately condemn this bill (which contains much much more than the guardian issue) under the false pretense that it is undermining "the family as fundamental unit". That is cheap rhetoric with another agenda in the background.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 20, 2014 11:20 a.m.

    Christians fear that this bill could take children away from Christian homes, but I could easily see Christians taking children away from Muslim parents because of the "deleterious" affect that Islam may have on the child. Look what they did to Native American children in years past. Christians are ALWAYS butting into everyone elses business and trying to make their own faith the only faith.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    June 20, 2014 12:03 p.m.

    @ 2 bits, my point was that the editorial was an overreaction. Based on what I've read, I stand by that. I'm not a knee-jerk reactionary and have learned that a lot of stuff put out there is an overreaction. There is usually more to the story than presented in the editorial, and that seems to hold true. Do you like overreactions instead of reasoned, fully-vetted, discussions? It's a fair question.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    June 20, 2014 12:13 p.m.

    Whenever I hear someone start talking about a "War on _____," I immediately tune out. Such a person is not interested in actually discussing a matter practically and rationally; they only want to inflame or dig in their heels.

    All of Tornado Mama's examples are suitably alarming on the surface, but (1) we don't know all the details of each case, and (2) of all the cases that Child Welfare investigates and intervenes, these are a drop in the bucket. With the size of the popluation we're talking about, exceptions are unavoidable. Of course there are going to be a few unfortunate cases of overreach. These are the ones you read about, not the thousands of cases that are handled with sensitivity and logic.

    The alarmism is, in this case, just another "slippery-slope" argument, which you can make when discussing virtually every law on the books. I think everyone would agree that there ARE cases when the state should step in to protect a child from its parents' "relgion." Should JW parents be allowed to deny their kids life-saving transfusions? I say no.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 20, 2014 12:15 p.m.

    As is often the case, whether this bill is good or bad or something in between depends on how it is implemented. I'm all for protecting parental rights, but the state has a responsibility to defend the defenseless.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    June 20, 2014 12:17 p.m.

    "...concerned about the 'named guardian' for each and every child in Scotland who would have access to any and all police and health records of the family of each child..."

    The Parents are the "named guardians" of their children, just as we are here in the US. Only when parents are found to be unfit due to abusing their responsibilities as parents is a non-parent named as "named guardian" - just as we do here in the US.

    Bishops and Stake Presidents in the Church are required by law to report child abuse to the proper authorities here in the US and in most countries elsewhere. Does that threaten the rights and responsibilities of "the traditional family"?

    LDS Family Services is involved in child custody cases, adoptions, and various family challenges where they have to mediate between parents, the rights of children, guardians (including a "guardian ad litem" in some cases). Does that cast doubt on the role of family as fundamental to society?

    Just because family is fundamental to society does not give parents carte blanche power and authority over children, nor does it render children non-entities with no rights.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 20, 2014 12:24 p.m.

    @RanchHand,

    "Christian Homes" can not be neatly stereotyped. There is a wide variety of Christian Homes. Some are strict, some are not. Some accept the ways of the world.. some do not. But there is a wide variety. Don't just assume every "christian home" is whatever stereotype you have.

    =========

    Re: "Christians are ALWAYS butting into everyone elses business"...

    And Government Humanists and Atheists DON'T do this???

    Theres a LONG list of things the humanists in Government have been trying to ram down our throats (whether we like it or not, whether it goes against our personal beliefs or not)...

    -Pay for your birth control
    -Accept Humanist definition of "Marriage" (not the traditional definition)
    -Christian children must learn what YOU want them to learn in school, eat what YOU want them to eat in school, do what YOU want them to do....

    What I'm saying is... Not only "Christians" but into everyone elses business and try to make others observe their faith, accept their beliefs, and do things their way (IF you can call "Humanism" a "faith").

    IMO... The Radical-Left today is like the Religious-Right that controlled government back in the 1980s.

  • David Centerville, UT
    June 20, 2014 12:29 p.m.

    The bill may be good in many ways. But if it has a provision for a "guardian" assigned by the government to supervise the care, nurturing and development of a child then everyone should oppose that provision.

    Esquire writes of an over=reaction by the editorialist. But what could be more of an over-reaction than a government program that assigns a guardian to oversee the care of children? There are some parents that struggle and fail in their role. But does that mean that all parents must work with a guardian to raise their children. This is a huge over-reaction by government and Wilf, who supports it.

    I unapologetically and strongly disagree with any legislation that weakens the right and ability of parents to lead their families.

    Think of it this way. Many people die each year because of car accidents. So should the government place a "guardian" or a driving supervisor in each car to help reduce driving accidents?

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    June 20, 2014 12:32 p.m.

    I've seen this movie before.

    Historically, whatever happened inside a family was considered that family's business, in total, and anyone outside the family - including law enforcement - was considered a violator of the family's "sovereignty" if they tried to intervene.

    The rights of the family unit in US were previously considered absolute, to the point where the first cases of child abuse were tried using cruelty to animals laws, because no laws prohibited a stern dad from breaking the bones of his kids, if he felt that was required.

    Now, everyone agrees that sometimes abuse is blatant enough to justify intervention.

    I'm pretty confident the Scottish have the ability to decide for themselves what the appropriate line is. I'm also confident that lawfully disciplining Jr. with a 2 x 4 will not make a re-appearance here in the US.

  • WhatMe? Salt Lake City, UT
    June 20, 2014 1:29 p.m.

    While understanding the necessity of government, our founding fathers also held and encouraged a healthy skepticism of government by the citizens. The level of trust many give to the government today seems to be based in a naive belief that the government will always define mine and your best interests as we would define them ourselves. Even with much evidence to the contrary, many are seduced by the thoughts of burdens lifted and life made easier supposing the power they have thus relinquished will always be held by someone wise, with whom we are in agreement as to it's proper use. Example consider the use/misuse of the Social Security funds.

  • WhatMe? Salt Lake City, UT
    June 20, 2014 1:44 p.m.

    @I M LDS 2 according to the bill in Scotland, the parents are NOT the named guardians of their children. It would be a teacher or health visitor or someone already employed in the care of children who may or may not already have a pre-existing relationship with the child.

    And as I said before, while on the surface, this seems like a wonderful idea for the welfare of children, your level of trust in the government seems naive. I am in agreement with our founding fathers who saw that government is a necessary evil, not the entity to whom we look as the ultimate source of our strength and power. Previously such governments were referred to simply as "the King." Currently, they are referred to as dictators and/or despots. And while all may be well and good at the hands of a benevolent dictator, the less benevolent dictator is hard to overthrow once you have willingly given all your power to the king.

  • Tornado Mama Dallas, TX
    June 20, 2014 1:52 p.m.

    Scotland passed this bill because they had previously passed both the CRPD and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

    Scotland is setting the stage for systematic assault on parental rights. It won't just be the occasional over-reach, the occasional exception. It will become commonplace, it will become the norm.

    "Guardians" have unprecedented power to make decisions on whatever issue they feel is not in the best interest of the child. And yes, Christians have good reason to fear they will be targeted and even that their children will be taken from them.

    Christians are already the target in other countries who have passed the CRC and CRPD. In the UK in 2010, Owen and Eunice Johns were denied the right to foster children because they refused to tell a child that homosexuality is acceptable.

    In Germany, armed troops are storming homes, removing children, and threatening parents with heavy fines and imprisonment. Why? The parents home-school their children instead of sending them to public schools which teach homosexual education in kindergarten. This is the living reality of hundreds of Christians in Germany, the Romeike and Wunderlich families are examples. Yet, Jews and Muslims are targets, too.

  • WhatMe? Salt Lake City, UT
    June 20, 2014 2:45 p.m.

    Pardon me for yet another comment. My niece, in another state, was accosted by a Child Protective Services worker at a fast food restaurant for two reasons, one, my niece carried her infant child in a wrap around her mid-section rather than in a baby carrier and then she allowed her 5 year old to hold the baby for a few moments supervised at the table, sitting on the booth bench. The CPS worker assumed that the absence of a baby carrier in the restaurant indicated the absence of an infant car seat in the automobile my niece was driving and the CPS worker didn't like it that my niece was allowing her daughter to learn to hold a baby in those circumstances.

    The next thing they know, CPS shows up at their home for a home evaluation/inspection and threatens them with removal of their children if they did not cooperate.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    June 20, 2014 3:10 p.m.

    Tornado Mama:

    I'm familiar with the German case where the couple is trying to get political asylum in the US because they're home schooling their kids and don't want to get authorized as a school.

    What about the couple in Wisconsin who felt prayer was the preferred treatment for their child who had diabetes? The couple were convicted for some level of homicide. Isn't this also a case of government incursion on freedom of religion? Please elaborate.

    If a man is one of those so-called snake handlers, and in a religious meeting one of the snakes gets away from him and bites a child, and the child dies, should there be some accountability? Or is this just the Will of God, or some other protected religious practice?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 20, 2014 3:27 p.m.

    One potential problem I see with this is... what if the Government appointed guardian thinks it's "bad for the child" to expose them to Conservative political beliefs (and insists that liberal government beliefs be taught to the child).

    Or the government surrogate-guardian thinks the parent's religion is not right... and therefor the child should not be exposed to it?

    Can you imagine how this would work out for for FLDS parents living in Texas (or elsewhere in the bible-belt where not being Baptist is "child abuse")?

    It's just too open for outsiders to step in and over-rule the parents IMO.

    I think most Parents are good people (though their personal style may not be the same as some government overseer). They should be given a LOT of latitude on how they raise their children... not always in fear the the Government guardian may not like what they are doing and take their children away.

    I've found that even when I don't agree with the parents... what they are doing usually ends up best for the children. It's hard for an outsider to judge.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    June 20, 2014 3:28 p.m.

    Tornado Mama says:

    "Scotland is setting the stage for systematic assault on parental rights. It won't just be the occasional over-reach, the occasional exception. It will become commonplace, it will become the norm . . And yes, Christians have good reason to fear they will be targeted and even that their children will be taken from them."

    Just . . because, huh? You go ahead and worry for all of us. You say the worst will happen with no actual information or knowlwedge to back it up besides a few bare-bones anecdotes. YAWN.

    What exactly is "homosexual education," anyway? Is the lack of overt condemnation of a thing tacit promotion of that thing?

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    June 20, 2014 3:49 p.m.

    2 Bits:

    I generally agree with much of what you said, but one example you used I think is pertinent: FLDS parents.

    Because of the demographics within the polygamist communities, even though they have a roughly 50/50 split of boys and girls, many of the boys become unneeded, or considered "competition" for a patriarch that is looking for additional younger wives.

    This results in the "lost boy" phenomenon where polygamists in Colorado City, AZ / Hilldale, UT essentially "banish" numbers of teenage boys, usually dropping them off in St. George to fend for themselves, unprepared for dealing with others and oftentimes minimally educated.

    In SLC there are volunteer rescue houses where "lost boys" are acclimated to living in society, and some heart breaking stories emerge. One 20 year old, who was pulled out of school in the 4th grade or so, had attempted to take the GED high school equivalence several times, unsuccessfully.

    In hindsight, aren't some of these cases reasonable opportunities for intervention?

    Or, how to handle muslims who mutilate the genitals of teenage girls so they will be less prone to unwanted behavior?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 20, 2014 5:45 p.m.

    Let's look at the "line of accountability" that exists in every family. God, our Father, allows us to welcome and nurture His children into our homes. God is just, but He doesn't suffer fools or foolish ideas. He knows what He is doing. He has instructed us to marry someone of the opposite sex and to wait until we are married before having sex; then, after marriage, He expects us to be faithful to our spouse. He has instructed us to welcome children into our family and He has charged us with the responsibility to properly raise those children.

    He has never given authority to the government to usurp the authority of the parents in that family. If government usurps that accountability, then those in government who interfere will be held accountable to God for that child. That is something that no thinking person would want.

  • RPrice Dallas, TX
    June 20, 2014 6:39 p.m.

    The US protects children from abuse and neglect. Scotland has taken this system too far. Instead of assigning a social worker to families who are abusing or neglecting their children, Scotland is assigning one social worker to each and every child in their nation.

    I'm shocked at my fellow Americans who seem to think that the Scots need another adult telling them how to raise their kids. Because that's what this is. This will hurt children as the relationship between the "guardian" and the parents becomes a power struggle. Reconciling religious views has always been a sore spot for those deciding what is best for society. Common sense tells us these same issues will be sore spots as the "guardian" and parents grapple over what is best for an individual child. But the “guardian” will win every time.

    If the US were to ratify the CRPD (in Congress this July), we would be headed down the same road to a gross loss of liberty.

    America is great because America is free.

    A Parental Rights amendment would protect parents and children from having a government bureaucrat dictating their decisions, and DCFS will continue to protect vulnerable children.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 20, 2014 7:11 p.m.

    When the God of the natural world created life and gave it the singular commandment to survive, he also created a natural law of the survival of the fittest. The act of procreation seemed to be the most popular and successful strategy along with the loyalty and devotion that we associate with parenthood. Many of our animal friends exhibit that same compulsion to protect their own offspring as we humans do.

    There is overwhelming evidence that the actual parents are the ones who will give the child the best opportunities for survival and thus the family group becomes the most important and most touted.

    However, humans, by virtue of their ability to think, sometimes carry the notion of personal survival too far away from the parental instinct and can injure the young by motives that have nothing to do with survival of the young person himself. Religious and patriotic indoctrination is often imposed upon the young long before the child has any sense of what it's all about.

    Society, its government, has an interest in the kind of citizen that the child will grow up to be and thus will impose rules upon parents.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    June 21, 2014 7:11 a.m.

    After doing a little research, I agree with Esquire that the tone of this editorial is needlessly hysterical. However, I also think the "Named Person" function is a governmental overreach. It's still unclear to me how this role isn't already covered by social service personnel. But that's for the Scots to decide for themselves.

    Here's a little more information on the topic. This is from a summary of the bill found on the government's web page:

    "The Bill requires local authorities and health boards to provide a ‘Named Person’ for everyone aged 0 to 18. This person will be a point of contact for advice or concern about the child. While there are duties for various public bodies to assist the Named Person and to share information with them, there are no new powers of compulsion. That is, the Bill does not give the Named Person any powers to force a child or family to do anything. If powers of compulsion are required, this can be done under existing child protection and Children’s Hearings legislation."

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    June 21, 2014 8:55 a.m.

    The "God of the natural world" was mentioned by Bob. I've been thinking about that for about an hour, wondering what that god might be like. From Bob's post, I concluded that that god's plan for populating earth would fail because each creature would immediately destroy any other life. Man would destroy woman because man is normally stronger than women. No child would be born. Life would be extingished before it began.

    On the other hand, the Judeo-Christian God placed Adam and Eve in the garden and gave them dominion over the earth and all things on the earth. They were taught to grow food from the ground and to use animal life for nourishment and for clothing.

    Which concept allowed us to be born?

    When our perception of Deity is artificial, we don't show proper respect to our Creator. We don't thank Him for life. We don't think of the obligation that we have to Him to teach children proper principles.

    No government can replace parents, nor can they decide what is "best" for a child. God send those children to families to be raised in righteousness.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    June 21, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    This article is terribly insensitive (and inaccurate) considering the DesNews actively advocates for the dissolution of SSM families in it's own state. Talk about double-speak.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 22, 2014 9:01 a.m.

    William Wordsworth wrote:

    "Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
    The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
    Hath had elsewhere its setting,
    And cometh from afar:
    Not in entire forgetfulness,
    And not in utter nakedness,
    But trailing clouds of glory do we come
    From God, who is our home:"

    We must never forget how much trust the Lord has placed in us as He allows us to raise his precious children. He trusts the man and the woman to whom He sends His children, to teach, to care for, to nurture.

    The family is the basic unit of society. It has a purpose. When a man and a woman marry, they complement each other. The woman's strengths compensate for the man's weaknesses and the man's strengths compensate for the woman's weaknesses.

    No government agency can handle the responsibility that God gave to us as we marry. He understands everything about mortal life. He defined marriage. He, our Creator, our Father in Heaven, is not amused when mankind tries to desolve the family unit.

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    June 24, 2014 9:17 a.m.

    These types of bills always contain some wonderful provisions. That is how they get people to swallow them. All one needs to do is look at the foster care system and attempts by the state force medical care on children who do not want it. My former neighbors - who were good parents - had a child who was thought to have cancer. The hospital insisted on treating the child with chemotherapy which could have left the child sterile. The parents were not even allowed to get a second opinion and were almost sent to jail for trying to get one. It turns out the child did not have cancer. The state put the family through the wringer because some doctor with a god complex thought he knew what was best for the child. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent fighting the state and courts later ruled that the parents had no recourse against the state. The state will bankrupt your family if someone decides that they know better. All the while children the state is supposed to care for in foster care are routinely lost or neglected.

    Bills like this should scare any reasonable person.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 9:37 a.m.

    The bill is an absolute intrusion into the privacy of the home and family. It promotes a socialist agenda in many aspects. The article is in no way an "over-reaction", it is a sensible communication alerting readers of some of the socialist trends out there.